To the libs who believe obama's policies work

[ahole-ic]

Bro, that doesn't debunk why we went. That mearly merely debunks who was in favor of going.

He is saying that WMD's were a lie. If they were a lie, why was it so bipartisan? That is what I'm saying. Everyone remembers the UN inspectors going and getting the run around. iraq violated tons of UN resolutions forcing them to comply. They only partially complied, running the inspectors out of complexes etc. The UN voted not to take military action but condemned iraq for doing what it was doing. It showed how ineffective and worthless the UN is.

So I think it's plainly obvious since both parties were saying iraq had wmd, and they could not disprove that iraq did not have wmd, that it is safe to say that going in for WMD was not a lie. That's obvious and the video and article prove it.

Just to be clear I'm stating that it is obvious that the US did not lie about WMD. They were simply wrong. They were intentionally misled. There is a huge difference.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

I have no political party. Nothing I said was wrong, learn to read or just stop posting because I said going to war, on the basis of Iraq having WMDs being a fact, was a lie. No matter who believed it was true, when you say something is a fact, when it is not, it's a lie. Ecrack should know this better than anyone in here.

 

[coolest user 10+ year member]

So if I was paying high gas prices when Bush was in office it was claimed by the libs it was because he was in bed with the oil companies. I'm now paying $1.50 more per gallon than the day obama took office. Is he in that same bed? Or was it just libs speaking ***** like they always do?

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

Just to be clear I'm stating that it is obvious that the US did not lie about WMD. They were simply wrong. There is a huge difference.

However, the collateral benefits of misrepresenting the intelligence by the neocons are little understood by the majority of Americans.

The possibility of having another base in which to attempt to maintain a steady flow of oil in the entire region, which our entire economy is dependent upon, was simply too good to pass up. To say that the war was about oil is often misunderstood to mean about just Iraqi oil, which is pure myopia on BOTH repub and democrat sides.

The additional short term opportunity for the Bush administration to appear putative and 'strong' cannot be overstated.

Ultimately, both objectives backfired to the point of nearly bankrupting the US, and costing us in legitimacy.

As well as our clear decline as a unilateral superpower.

 

[coolest user 10+ year member]

And I really don't care what any statistics say, the fact is that **** cost more now and I have less money to buy it with than ever before and jobs are nearly non-existent around here. Obama = fail.

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

So if I was paying high gas prices when Bush was in office it was claimed by the libs it was because he was in bed with the oil companies. I'm now paying $1.50 more per gallon than the day obama took office. Is he in that same bed? Or was it just libs speaking ***** like they always do?

Oil (sweet crude) is a globally floated commodity, the US currently has little power to affect its PPB price. It is more an issue of significantly increasing global demand, which, ironically, we have fostered through international policy.

No policy method outside of nationalization would counter this dynamic within the US.

We dont have sufficient reserves here at home to change this in any meaningful way.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

LOL, poor spider. It's not even a question of whether it was a lie. This has been discussed before and there's no need to rehash things just for the sake of arguing. You can say I have a political party all you want but if what ecrack said was true, that BOTH sides said there was WMDs, how can I have an affiliation when I am calling them liars. Lie: an inaccurate or false statement. Read again, then one more time, all I said was it was a lie. Don't care what they THOUGHT, it wasn't true.

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

Standard textbook response. When do you graduate bro?

I don't know of any textbook written that has stated this, it is my own analysis from 10 years of studying global economics.

Did you even understand that I am agreeing with you on many points?

 

[ahole-ic]

No matter who believed it was true, when you say something is a fact, when it is not, it's a lie. Ecrack should know this better than anyone in here.

I suppose we are arguing whether or not the United States intentionally misled the people to justify a war. It's clear that they didn't. We could take the argument to the definition of the word "lie" which is not relevant to the discussion or we can just agree that the US went to iraq for WMD because it actually believed they had WMD. That has been proved in this thread. Can anyone debunk the things I posted?

 

[ahole-ic]

However, the collateral benefits of misrepresenting the intelligence by the neocons are little understood by the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans know that didn't happen. Just the lunatic kook fringe of libs all regurgitate it to each other and they start thinking everyone believes it. We have already disproved that very statement in this thread.

The possibility of having another base in which to attempt to maintain a steady flow of oil in the entire region, which our entire economy is dependent upon, was simply too good to pass up. To say that the war was about oil is often misunderstood to mean about just Iraqi oil, which is pure myopia on BOTH repub and democrat sides.

How much oil is currently flowing in and out of there?

The additional short term opportunity for the Bush administration to appear putative and 'strong' cannot be overstated.

Ultimately, both objectives backfired to the point of nearly bankrupting the US, and costing us in legitimacy.

As well as our clear decline as a unilateral superpower.

You realize the obama admin and the democrat controlled congress since 2006 have doubled and tripled down on the debt the war cost right? I mean honestly you have to realize that the wars have been a drop in the bucket compared to the money obama and congressional democrats have spent right?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Still trying to find a state electoral college that went against the popular vote of that state, or it's proportional allocation.

Four times:In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote, and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

And I think we all remember what happened in 2000.

In addition, there have been quite a few elections in which a few dozen thousand votes could have been switched in key states and changed the outcome of the election: Kennedy beat Nixon 303 to 219 in the EC, but got barely more than a hundred thousand popular votes more, and Nixon beat Humphrey 301 to 191, but got only half a million more votes. Nixon could have won Texas and Illinois without winning the popular vote, and Humphrey could have done the same with Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio.

I didn't say the popular vote of the country. I said to name an instance where the popular vote of a state was not referenced in the electoral college.

An example would be that if 95% of Cali voted for Obama and the members of the electoral college voted for Mitt.